Bush's Brazen Request

The last time Bush suddenly disclosed alleged plots that had been allegedly stymied through CIA interrogation, most if not all were called into question.

So my questions for the White House are these: Which of those attacks was more than a fantasy? And which would not have been stopped with more humane and arguably more effective interrogation techniques?

Still Relevant

I noted in last Wednesday's column that Bush seemed awfully defensive about his continued relevance. But I didn't mean to suggest that his defensiveness was entirely warranted.

Yes, he's a lame duck. And the Washington political class is increasingly turning its attention toward the race to succeed him. But until or unless the Democratic Congress proves that it's able to actually, successfully resist him, Bush's relevance remains assured.

Here's how reader Scott Lane put it in an e-mail: "Bush is not relevant?

"The 2006 election is a referendum on the war --- Bush sends 30,000 more troops.

"The Democrats will get him in September --- Bush beats em back with a stick and gets 6 more months.

"Democrats will get face saver with the Webb Amendment [to time at home for troops] --- they can't even get that. (What happened to all those wavering Republicans?)

"Democrats finally corner him with a cuddly kids bill like SCHIP --- Bush vetoes it and will drag them to the negotiating table.

"Democrats will weaken surveillance --- Bush pounds them into submission in August. He'll do it again on renewal.

"Bush threatens spending vetoes --- the Democrats disassemble and can't even get a bill passed.

"And Bush will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities next year. And you will be scratching your head and asking stupid questions like: 'Is Bush Relevant?'"